Abstract
This book is made up of 16 contributions divided into three sections, with the first chapter providing an introduction by the editor William C Smith to the theme of the book. The global testing culture is defined by Smith (p. 10) as ‘a culture in which high-stakes standardized testing is accepted as a foundational practice in education and shapes how education is understood in society and used by its stakeholders’.
The purpose of the book, in the words of the editor, is to problematise the global testing culture which has become pervasive and embedded in practice around the world on the assumption that it supports effective and legitimate education practice. The central argument is that there has been a rapid rise in high-stakes testing globally in the last 30 years, fuelled by international assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), as well as significant growth in national assessments. Educational quality is now measured predominantly through tests which form the basis of accountability systems for students, schools and systems made legitimate by their use as a policy tool. Contributors to this volume provide a critical dialogue that challenges this position, questioning the underlying values, assumptions and outcomes of the system and describing the unintended negative consequences of this culture. Testing has predominantly become a negative disciplining force on agents, with resources focused on performing well in standardised national tests with the intention of avoiding penalties.
Section 1 considers the global testing culture and the international education agenda, providing some interesting case studies. The policy of Education with Community Participation (EDUCO) in El Salvador is critiqued and the role played by influential international organisations, such as development banks, questioned. Important reasons for Chile’s decision to participate in TIMSS and PISA are identified as being to improve State legitimacy, to compare its performance internationally, to build institutional capacity, to improve national testing and to align the national curriculum and tests with international standards. One interesting observation relates to the importance of local positional competition: Chile draws comfort from the fact that it performs better than its regional neighbours, even though in PISA it consistently ranks below international averages. Finland’s educational success is attributed in part to a supportive testing culture which contrasts favourably to the disciplining structure that the book criticises.
The assumption that student achievement in PISA tests is attributable to national policy environments is called into question. How far preoccupation with student performance on standardised tests in numeracy and literacy serves the broader agenda of sustainable development is considered, concluding that while such tests should continue to be included as part of global monitoring supporting the need for inclusion and equity, they are inadequate by themselves and fail to deal with broader issues of social justice and sustainability.
Section 2 considers the absence of formative testing and the politics of accountability. A recurring theme is that accountability testing, usually involving standardised tests, has a negative backwash effect on student learning as it distorts teaching. The nature and restricted format of accountability testing, usually based on multiple choice questions or short answers, tends to focus learning on memorisation and does not nurture critical, creative thinking and problem solving. Classroom assessments can be much more authentic and culturally relevant, and can support student learning far more effectively, than accountability assessments. The trend of replacing classroom assessments by accountability assessments is alarming.
The dangers of using formative assessment for summative purposes are highlighted. The highest priority must be to support student learning in local contexts, something which accountability assessments tend to be incapable of doing well. Formative assessment should encourage natural high demand questioning in the classroom, rather than the undemanding recall required by many high-stakes national assessments, particularly those used in low income countries. What accountability tests actually measure is often poorly understood and can mislead stakeholders. How these problems can be addressed is very occasionally referred to, for example, by strengthening the professional skills of test development teams to improve the quality of local testing and by understanding and using tests only for the purposes for which they are designed.
Section 3 of the book focuses on the global testing culture in national contexts. One particularly interesting study analyses the 2014 reforms in Denmark which employ computer adaptive tests. In addition to more traditional functions, these are designed to achieve broader goals, including helping students to fulfil their potential, thereby satisfying different contemporary demands. It would be good to see further studies in this area, as interesting questions are raised about what technology will make possible in the future. Another study illustrates the unintended negative consequences of the introduction of an outcomes-based accountability policy in South Korea.
Stakeholders in South Africa simplistically and dangerously equate high metric pass rates (a high-stakes secondary school leaving examination) with a high quality of education, neglecting other vital purposes of education in doing so. Sweden’s decentralising education reform results in a number of negative consequences including unproductive competition between schools, simplistic comparison data and rankings.
Smith’s book achieves what it sets out to do in making clear the very real failures, dangers and unintended consequences involved in a perverse over-reliance on a testing culture and accountability testing. While poor policies and their inappropriate use are clearly blamed, some contributors seem, at least implicitly, to put the blame on the act of testing itself and it would be easy to conclude that there is, therefore, very limited or no value in high-stakes testing. This would, however, be a false and potentially dangerous conclusion. A much better conclusion would be that assessments must be well designed, assess what is valued rather than only valuing what is assessed, and be used only for the purposes for which they are intended.
One of the core values of the global testing culture described by Smith (p. 12) is that education is a human right and that all students should have access to high quality education. Most educational policy-makers are understandably concerned with inclusion and equity. This requires some form of measurement against standards in order to view progress over time and encourage a meritocracy. The origins of testing, after all, go back to ancient China where it was used as a means of selection for the civil service, designed to ensure at least some degree of fairness. While accountability testing cannot be entirely scientific and objective (another criticism levelled against it), when it is well designed and appropriately used it can provide one source of valuable data that needs to be carefully interpreted and triangulated against other data.
It is comparatively easy to articulate and analyse the many failings of the global education system, and this book highlights a particularly important one. While recognising that this book does not set out to consider suggestions about how to improve the situation, it would have been interesting to read more perspectives on possible ways forward, as have been discussed in other publications with a focus on similar themes.